Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US

It is quite evident that the 4th amendment does not apply to me. On January 19, 2011 the government forced their way into my home, physically
assaulting me in the process, without a warrant. The 'evidence' they collected and fabricated was used against me to steal my daughter. The judge
said she did not care about my constitutional rights in the courtroom in front of everyone. The court appointed attorney was allowed to lie to me
about what I was being charged with. It went into record that I plead guilty to a bunch of stuff that I had been disputing since day one, and they
added more accusations that I had not heard/read until after the judge rubberstamped the papers.

I am now branded a child abuser when there was no proof I had done anything wrong. The government workers lied and said that I admitted to doing all
of this stuff and that was the majority of the evidence used against me. I never said anything like what they claimed I admitted to saying.

I was denied the right to a fair trial. I was denied the right to be free of unlawful searches. It has been made evident to me by the court system
that I have no rights whatsoever.

I was stripped of my second amendment rights. I am not a felon. I was told it is standard around here to make any parent involved with the
government to give up all firearms.

I had owned a gun to protect myself against an abusive ex-husband. He would disappear for years at a time and then pop back up again. I was told I
couldn't get another restraining order unless he committed another act of violence against me. Well, they kept refusing to enforce the restraining
orders when I did have them. And it took me years of victimization before I was even granted one. So, they took my child, stripped me of my
firearms, gave my ex my home address, and put it in the court order that I was not to have any domestic violence in my home. Well, they made me
legally responsible for someone else's behavior. They let him know where I lived and that I was not allowed to have firearms in the home, thus
painting a bullseye on me. So much for having the right to life. Of course, I am just poor white trash so who cares if I am beaten and possibly
murdered. I ended up having to move out of my apartment since he knew where I lived thanks to them. I have yet to find another apartment that cheap,
so I have suffered additional cost of living because of their actions against me.

And I am sure that I am not the only person born in this country that this type of thing has happened to. If you are poor in this country then you
are trash and have no rights whatsoever. If you cannot afford legal representation then you will be convicted of whatever the government says you
did. If you have a court appointed attorney, that atttorney will not want to work for you. My court appointed attorney told me that she was not
going to defend me.

The poor in this country do not have rights. People may pretend they do, but in practice they have no rights at all.

Prior to January 19, 2011, I had a clean criminal background. I was convicted on civil charges which carry the same weight almost as if it were
criminal charges. And they don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for civil charges, which is why they pursue it in that manner. Society
still treats you as a criminal whether you did anything wrong or not. If I had not been poor I would not have even been targeted in that manner. Had
I been one of the blessed people chosen to have employment then I would not have been targeted like that. My poverty was held against me. My
disabilities were held against me. I was discriminated against because of my income status and my disabilities.

There were very obvious lies in the court papers. The judge said she did not care. One lie was that I had moved around several times in the past
year. At that time I had moved one time. They lied about the condition of the home. It was messy, yes, but I was unpacking. They didn't care.
They still claimed that it was a lot worse than it was. They claimed, for example, that there were cans of food all over the place. The food was
neatly stacked on shelves. I had stocked up on food as is advised here on ats and other message boards. I had aluminum cans that I was getting ready
for recycling to get some extra money to pay bills. That was wrote up as having trash all over the place. I was smashing the cans down so that I
could fit more of them into a bag. And they were only in one room. I had clothes that I was sorting into darks and lights to go do laundry. I
didn't have a washer so I had to go to the laundry mat. I was pricing stuff for a flea market booth I just got to make some money. I had no job
offers in over a year, so I was doing all I could legally to get money to pay bills.

How about when an illegal immigrant makes a false workers comp claim against an American citizen and instead of them prosecuting the illegal immigrant
for his crime, they use the resources that should be made available to the American citizen, against him. American can't find lawyer to defend him
because lawyers say there's no money representing defendant. American even has homeowner come in to testify that only american himself was working on
house. Woman who works for NYS Unimployed insurers Fund claims there's absolutely no merit to the case or proof the illegal immigrant was there or
even knew me, and case should be thrown out. 99.99% positive I won case, receive judgment against me because I'm American and have no rights.

If you want i can provide all the transcripts from every hearing, appeal to NYS workers comp Appeals board in Albany, emails sent to politicians,
justice dept, civil rights activists, lawyers, and multitudes of others.

And that's only 1 example in my short 40 years.

Honestly, if you have to ask.....you're either not form America or about as bright as a bag of hammers.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Cherry picking is what you ,business men, corporations, lawyers and polititions do to use the foundation of what America was founded on to gain the
upper hand over the masses.
The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights are very plain and simple and it all comes down to interpitaion which seems
to get lost by those who seek control of the masses for the benefit of the few.

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.

The american government was established as the highest form of power in america and you and those who seek to take advantage over the people think
because certain words and terms are not mentioned in The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights that they are exempt
from following these fundamental principles and established precedents. B.S.!

Well for starters its not something I do.

Secondly its been apparent that the bulk of people in the thread dont know the difference between the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution
and the Bill of Rights, let alone actually being able to list what a right is and how they work.

The onlything that is BS is the lack of knowledhe by the people on what thety are and how they work.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I have seen this comment used quite a bit by people lately and I am curious.

Exactly what rights have American citizens lost?
When did they lose those rights?

Im not looking for a fight or anything, but am curious as to what people are seeing in regards to this topic.

edit on 15-10-2011 by Xcathdra
because: spelling

Since the "PATRIOT" Acts, the government can not only listen in on phone conversations without a warrant, they can also kick down your door,
imprison you, and never tell anyone anything about it, simply because they "suspect terrorism." No warrant, no notifying family members, no trial.
Has it happened? Not that I've heard of, but there's some freedoms that have, at least on a "godd@mn piece of paper" been stripped away.

Patriot Act we lost privacy on our cell phones, govt has right to imprison us as long as they want without a trail.just a couple examples from that
piece of #%^#.

Really? what part of the patriot act allows the lost privacy ojn your cell phone and what part says they can lock you up without a trial?

Please be specific

Originally posted by Optimistprime78
Obama went to war through the U.N. Without congressional approval. By the way we pay the bill for 90% of U.N. Funds.

Not sure where the UN comes in when dealing with indiviual rights?

Originally posted by Optimistprime78
Bills of rights and constitution since early 1900's has been getting slowly manipulated and stepped on. IRS is actually a illegal!! Only the states
are allowed to tax not the federal government check out the documents. They will back up what I am saying.

The IRs is not illegal, and please point out where taxes (the act of or act of not) a right.

Originally posted by Optimistprime78
Obama last week said on tv his criminal staff will pass his jobs bill without congress using his legal team and executive orders!!

And? What action is he taking that is illegal or a violation of a right?

Originally posted by Optimistprime78
Our government was built with checks and balances but now a days they don't care they go around it like we have been doing this a while no one has
stopped us let just do what we want. We now have a secret super 6 committee put together by the administration to take actions and over rule the
congress and house.

We are only one major disaster away from dictatorship.

yuou are right checks and balacnes were built in. Thwe problem is the people are the final check and balance, and as I have said the complete lack of
understanding of not only how their government works, but the fact there is more than one elvel of it, in addition to people listing off what they
think is a right when its not, is the ultimate problem.

You cant say something is broke when people dont know how its stuppose to work in the first place.

Right but one fo the problems is, and I will point it out with you r response, is you limited your response to the FEderal Government. People tend to
gravitate to them and just stop while complettly ignoring the fact its one piece of the puzzle.

As an example the people making the argument that the federal government says a person cant own a "plant". Yet they completely ignore, or dont
understand, that the states have their own laws and all the people who have gone to jail for possession of said plants are charges at the locla and
state level, not the federal.

If people are tgoing to protest that and invoke the stats in their argument, dont you think they should know what they are talking about?

This question has come up quite a bit partly due to growing curiosity about this rapidly spreading protest and partly due to the fact that the media
keeps claiming we dont know what we are protesting about. This is in fact grossly untrue. There are so many rights that have been taken away from us,
rights that are both constitutional and that are also humanitarian in nature. And as I am so very sure that several others have covered all the bases
I will tell you which one has been scaring me the most lately and keeping me up at night.

An AMERICAN citizen by birth was executed without any kind of legal process. His right as an American citizen is a trial with a non partial judge and
jury of his peers. He is entitled to legal representation, to appeals if necessary, in short to all the most basic legal rights all American citizens
share. And I know what you are gonna say... He was a muslim extremist terrorist, he left our country at seven and was brain washed over seas, he was a
double agent, we are engaged in war, the government did it to protect us yada yada yada. BUT it does NOT matter if he was all of these things because
no matter which way you dice it he was still what folks? Thats right an American citizen entitled to the legal process. And just as a reminder the
rules of war DONT apply to this situation because we are currently engaged in an UNDECLARED war. Let me repeat that for you.. we are in an undeclared
and otherwise illegal war.

Besides all of the reasons mentioned up above the most obvious reason to me is that if our government was truly trying to restore our faith in our
nation's leaders then they should have done it by the book. Obama wants to let us know he is trying to change things and prove to us that there is
some transparancy in the system then have a proper trial. Let the country know who he is and why he deserves to be executed, show your evidence, and
have a jury decide. If they find him guilty and sentence him to death then by all means execute him. But you dont go against our constitution, you
dont strip a citizen of their rights, and you dont do things in the dark that make you look guilty. Quite frankly America has no way of knowing WHO
was executed. Perhaps it was someone who got fresh with Michelle and Barack had him whacked and then slapped an al quaida (sp) member's dossier on
their body. And while its highly unlikely that thats the case we dont really know now do we? The line between citizen and an enemy of the state is
becoming less and less clear and by letting our administration slide on this murder by execution we've set a precedent that will bite us in the ass.
Today its an unconfirmed member of a terrorist faction being executed without trial, tomorrow will it be peaceful protesters? People who speak out
against injustices? Ones deemed useless or replaceable by our government? When you allow a person to have their rights stripped away and do nothing to
fight against it then you are sending them a message that next time they can do it to you. And its only a matter of time until they will.

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker
the right to privacy via the patriot act. we also in a way have lost the right to protect ourselves from any boogeymen since the government has taken
it upon themselves to do all of the "protecting".

What part of the patriot act affects you?

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker
rather than encourage citizens to arm themselves, they encourage us to "see something and say something".
emphasizing their role as guardian protector.

Which has nothing to do with loosing a right

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker
in the days of the wild west, there was no department of homeland security. there was just the department of winchester, smith, and wesson.

In addition to town marshalls and the police. Just because in the movies you see the shootouts, it doesnt make for a good movie to show the aftermath,
namely trials and what nnot that came from it.

Voluntary? Are you kidding? You have no choice in this country. If you want to board a bus, train or plane indeed you must go through security.I
don't know what country you are from but thats the way it is here now.Furthermore, the police think that now you don't have a right to video them
for any reason. This is being fought out in the courts. You used to be able to assemble peacefully , but now you must have a 'permit' to do so.If
the court decides they don't like your cause, then you can't do it. I could go on and on but I'll leave it at that for now.

for starters im from the US.
Secondly no, you are not required tyo go thru security - period.

The tried argument of recording the polce has gone through the court system, and people not involved in a police encounter have every right to record
if its in public and their actions dont interfere with the officers or the rights of the people the police are dealing with.

Please, continue on.

You and several others have pulled this generic response and statre you can go on and on, so continue on. When you hit on a right thats been taken,
ill comment. Until then everything you have listed has nothing tod o with your individual rights, or haveing any taken from you.

You said something about "guaranteed individual rights". That is an asinine phrase. A right doesn't need to be guaranteed, it just is.

Like the the message about growing and harvesting plants. You said that is not a guaranteed individual right. I disagree. I should have every right to
grow and harvest naturally occurring plants. Yes, even coca, opium and maryjane. Just because you, or some other deluded person thinks they know my
life better than I do does not make you, or them, right.

You also said that a person can trade on their own property. No, they can not. Unless, of course, big brother says it is OK. That, my friend, makes it
a privilege, not a right.

I don't want to addrss any more points. I think you are a troll.

Well thanks for stopping by, contrinuting nothing to the thread, calling me a troll and doing the typical ring and run. When you decide to educate
yourself on this topic, please stop back by and join in.

Originally posted by Twilly
The second amenment says I have the right to bear arms. Period. I cannot buy a full auto AR-15 today in the US. The second amendment does not say I
have the right to bear "some " arms...

And The Supreme Court has upheld the fact the 2nd amendment applies to the individual. Care to point out where the 2nd amendment says you an be in
possession of a fully auto ar-15?

The argument you are using cuts both ways... To argue that because it doesnt state something, then you can have it actually contradicts the part where
it says anything not specifically spelled out falls to the states.

So I've got one. I say it is a fundamental right for an individual to know and be in control of what he is ingesting and putting into or on his body.
By way of laws NOT requiring foods to be labeled as containing genetically modified ingredients, favoring the likes of Monsanto, I feel a right has
been lost. I'm aware of how that problem arose, and know how we are going about attempting to fix it.

Protecting financial interest of corporations at the expense of an individuals right to control their own body, health and well being by being aware
of what is in their food choices, to me, is a good example of rights being removed.

If a right is something that does not harm or encroach on another then these corporations should not have the "right" to harm citizens by lawful
deceit.

By the fact that many people are paying attention we are constantly battling to keep fundamental rights. And by fundamental rights I'm referring to
birth, inherent, God given, natural rights. The right to clean untainted, un-poisoned food an water is such, as that is what is required to survive
and maintain health. The right to care for yourself without having laws that hide poison in your food. That right has been taken, and will hopefully
be regained.

People that are fighting to maintain access to nutritional supplements, or fighting to be able purchase and consume healthy foods such as raw milk
know where the problem is originating from and are very much dealing with it.

If that's not an example, then I don't know what is, and am hence confused by your post.

Any person can fix their roof. Where it becomes an issue is when you go to sell that house, because roofs come with warranties.

The Federal government is not saying a person cant do this or that, the State is, which is in compliance with how the constitution works.

If you fix your own roof, and go to sell your house to someone else, dont they have a right to know who did the work and if it was done correctly? If
a persons buys your house, and the roof fails, what recourse is there?

People like making these types of arguments about their rights this and thri rights that, yet fail to understand their rights end when they infringe
on someone else rights.

If a person spends their entire life savings buying a house where the homeowner fixed the roof himself, and thats not disclosed, and thge manner the
roof was fixed doesnt meet building code, what recourse does the new homeowner have?

The right of that homewoner to fix his roof interferes with the right of the second homeowner to own that property and live there.

People are to quick to only look at how it affects them, and completely fail to understand its not a singular issue - at all.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.